[Vision2020] submission response

[keely emerinemix]

Michael,

I appreciate your comments, as always, but find that I still have 
significant points of disagreement with you.  I'll ennumerate them here in 
response to your comments yesterday:

1.  My example of two pals -- two women, two men -- having lunch was 
intended; I reject that dating must have, outside of the presumed 
heterosexual nature you described, a hierarchical or "pursuer/pursued" 
construct.  I like the idea of a man and a woman both feeling free to be 
pleased with an invitation and to risk rejection if it's turned down, and 
the mature relationships I know of are the ones where two people who love 
each other simply decide together what their plans are, either for that day 
or for their lifetimes.  A "traditional sociology of dating" hasn't proved 
to be particularly good for women or for men.  I think Christ would lead us 
to something much more mutual, honest and loving.

2.  The argument that the relationship between husband and wife mirrors in 
every way the relationship between Jesus and the Church is useful insofar as 
the limits of analogy are respected.  The Church submits to Christ; Christ 
serves the Church, submitting even to death.   Like all analogy, though, its 
usefulness is in the truth it illustrates, not in what it logically can't -- 
the truest mirroring of the Christ-and-Church relationship would, logically 
speaking, result in the death of the "Christ" type of the two, which we 
would obviously reject.   But the passage in Ephesians 5 clearly states 
"submit you, therefore, one to another," before it commands that women 
submit to their husbands and their husbands love their wives.  The mutual, 
reciprocal command is the foundation -- it introduces -- the exegesis of the 
command, which follows with an obvious parallel construction.  If only women 
are to submit, then only men are to love, if we read the parallels 
literally.  Do we really want to suggest that, especially when the 
overarching principle is one of mutual submission in love?

3.  A point I've made before is that while Jesus chose to set aside much of 
His majesty and be in complete submission to His Father WHILE HE WAS ON 
EARTH, He is no longer in unilateral submission to God the Father, nor was 
He prior to the Incarnation.  That's the view of Scripture and, less 
important, the view of the Church orthodox for two millennia.  You say that 
Christ's being "Son to the Father" implies a role distinction, but you err 
in two ways:

One, you are taking "son" and "father" in the literal sense that we use it 
in English, but the Trinity is far too complex to reside within the 
vocabulary we have; we use words like "son" and "father," "male and female 
He created them," to illustrate imperfectly the Perfect that surpasses our 
language.  We don't believe, for example, that God, who is described in 
Genesis as "male and female" (as we are thus created "in His image") has 
physical sexual characteristics, much less a two-gendered physical body.  We 
accept that within the Person of God the Father, we have a God who is fully 
male and fully female in ways that we cannot pack into the word containers 
we have.  Indeed, some have tragically used the "maleness" of God to assert 
that men more properly mirror the Godhead than do women, an error that must 
grieve the One who created us both male and female.

Two, you are importing into your argument of "roles" within the Trinity a 
hierarchy, however sanctified, that mirrors the relationships and roles we 
have here on Earth.  What Jesus DID wasn't simply a "role," it was and is 
essential to his Personhood, and the mutuality and harmony of the Trinity, 
which your own elders correctly describe as a dance of love and intimacy, 
cannot also be one of "leadership" and "follower."  However, EVEN IF IT DID, 
it only goes as far as an analogy as its illustration of love and mutuality; 
it cannot be used as a model of gender relationships that subjugates women.

4.  Jesus set forth an entire revolution that forever changed how people 
dealt with each other, and I have to confess that your suggestion that He 
"did not teach a current liberal social theory" bothered me.  Biblical 
submission and equality between the sexes is far too critical, far too 
original, to have been the product of liberal or any other kind of human 
social construct; liberal social theory, while responsible for a lot of neat 
things throughout the years, couldn't possibly produce a revolution that 
would erase the lingering effects of the Fall in our post-resurrection, 
pre-Second Coming, here-and-now world.  You fail, I think, to see how 
utterly radical -- as in, "at the root" -- Jesus' treatment of women was, an 
error that has done more to blunt the social and personal impact of the 
Gospel on men and women than virtually anything else I can think of.

5.  RE:  prooftexting.  You say, "but when you have statements as simple and 
direct as 'wives, submit to your husbands,' I'm not sure what is wrong 
referencing them with weight."  Me, neither.  But to follow your point to 
its obvious and ludicrous conclusion, I'll rest in "husbands, love your 
wives," knowing that -- thank God -- I only have to submit, not love the 
guy; in turn, he gets to love me yet doesn't have to submit.  Except that 
there's the preceding verse -- "submit yourselves one to another," and the 
parallel construct of the verse becomes much more obvious.

6.  Your exposition of other "submission" roles in society (citizen to 
police, employee to boss, etc.) falls short because those are vocations; 
they are not ontological categories into which beings are born.  And please 
remember that I'm in favor of women submitting to their husbands!  I like 
submission -- in fact, I like it so much I think everyone ought to try it, 
including Jeff to me, me to the kids, the barista to the customer and the 
customer to the customer behind him.  Such a practice would result in a 
world absent of strife, oppression, and threat -- which means it won't 
happen, but I'm commanded to live a Kingdom life, not a geopolitical Earthly 
life.

7.  Women as fighter pilots, you say, is offensive to Wilson because of the 
"specific aesthetic and moral issue regarding beauty, femininity, and 
appropriate warfare methods," not because he harbors any thought that women 
should be prohibited from pursuing any career other than that of soldier.  
The example of Deborah in the OT is something you're familiar with, I know, 
and so we can agree that we have a God who bucks social convention and uses 
who He pleases to accomplish His will.  When I hear from female NSA students 
that they have no intention of using their degrees but know they're now 
better prepared, they believe, to homeschool and nurture their children, I 
cringe.  But of course, where would they use their degrees?  They certainly 
can't preach or teach at any CREC schools or congregations, can they?  And 
of course women are better at "mothering" than men; men are better fathers, 
too, than women are -- because mothers are, by definition, what female 
parents are called.  But are they necessarily better at parenting?  No.  I 
stayed home with my kids, even though I have a degree.  However, my 
husband's business was established and he could support us; I have a useless 
degree and couldn't.  But there are many times when he's done better than I 
have.  Of course, only I could nurse the kids, but there are very, very few 
other jobs that require breasts -- or a penis.

As for Nancy Wilson's support of women medical doctors, I can't help but 
think that a woman married to a man who believes that men have the final say 
in how many children a couple should bear has an affinity for women doctors 
more for reasons of modesty and kinship than because of a true commitment to 
the full potential, academic and spiritual, of every woman.  I've read 
enough "Femina" in C/A to cringe in a most unladylike way, Michael, and I'm 
not even remotely convinced of either Wilson's bent toward a relatively 
liberal means of encouraging men and women.

That's enough for now.  Jeff is writing a eulogy for his grandmother, who 
died last week at 90.  She and her husband were married for 67 years and 
modeled Biblical submission better than any couple I know, and it's been a 
remarkable and touching reminder to us as we head into our 23rd year 
together that love, indeed, is the truest expression of our relationship 
with Jesus Christ.  I'll miss her terribly, but I rejoice in the example she 
and Pop left us.

keely

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/